Great Western Electrification Progress

[zn1]

i didnt think stoke poges lane(horlicks bridge)(slough west) would have needed attention, its a high structure if memory serves, the footbridge is a cool place, never liked walking accross it when i was a kid. not so bad now...

the Western should have been strung up years ago, all the way to penzance, the dawlish wall is a bit of a nono though......it should be resignalled also for 140 running...it doesnt affect steam running neither does it....

 

[tadhatter]

the Western should have been strung up years ago, all the way to penzance, the dawlish wall is a bit of a nono though......it should be resignalled also for 140 running...it doesnt affect steam running neither does it....

agree but why is the dawlish wall a bit of a no no? Certain parts of raikways in Scotland run right next to the sea.

 

[HSTEd]

It would have to have money spent on it to protect the equipment from falling rocks basically.
And spending money is the biggest no no of all.

 

[John S2]

agree but why is the dawlish wall a bit of a no no?

It would be a waste of money to electrify this section as sooner or later it will end up in the sea due to the fact that sea level is rising and will continue to do so. Planning needs to start now for a new electrified line bypassing this section.

 

[DXMachina]

It would be a waste of money to electrify this section as sooner or later it will end up in the sea due to the fact that sea level is rising and will continue to do so. Planning needs to start now for a new electrified line bypassing this section.

Regrettably your prediction seems to have come true sooner than anyone expected.

Can't help wondering - if its worth constantly rebuilding this section - whether its a good usage case for discontinuous electrification and running thru sets on diesel for a few miles

 

[HSTEd]

The line will not be below sea level any time soon, since for large parts of the route it is critical to the local flood defence system.

Increased spending on the flood defences will lead to an improved condition for the railway.

An inland railway that serves the same intermediate locales is impractical which means an inland route could only ever be a supplement and not a replacement. (For instance a high speed section to allow drastically cut journey times to Plymouth and thus Cornwall from the rest of the country)

 

[TheKnightWho]

Regrettably your prediction seems to have come true sooner than anyone expected.

Can't help wondering - if its worth constantly rebuilding this section - whether its a good usage case for discontinuous electrification and running thru sets on diesel for a few miles

And completely eliminate all time saving on that section?

 

[DXMachina]

And completely eliminate all time saving on that section?

Very little time in saved by trains sitting in floods with the sparking ruin of OHLE draped across them.

 

[John S2]

The line will not be below sea level any time soon, since for large parts of the route it is critical to the local flood defence system.

Increased spending on the flood defences will lead to an improved condition for the railway.

An inland railway that serves the same intermediate locales is impractical which means an inland route could only ever be a supplement and not a replacement. (For instance a high speed section to allow drastically cut journey times to Plymouth and thus Cornwall from the rest of the country)

The complacency of this post is breathtaking. What is 'impractical' is to assume that strengthening the existing section is an appropriate solution for the main line to Plymouth.

 

[WelshBluebird]

You just have to look at what has just happened to the sea wall at Dawlish to see there needs to be some kind of plan B.

 

[YorkshireBear]

The complacency of this post is breathtaking. What is 'impractical' is to assume that strengthening the existing section is an appropriate solution for the main line to Plymouth.

This needs doing alongside an Exeter to Newton Abbot high speed line (140).

Ie the sea route only retained for regional and local services. The sea wall can be strengthened enough but as you say not if it cuts off the entire SW. Hence building the diversion too.

 

[cle]

Agreed, they should do a TGV-style bypass to Newton Abbot, even if they don't tackle the rest of the twisty route... might save a couple of minutes too.

 

[John S2]

This needs doing alongside an Exeter to Newton Abbot high speed line (140).

Ie the sea route only retained for regional and local services. The sea wall can be strengthened enough but as you say not if it cuts off the entire SW. Hence building the diversion too.

I agree.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Very little time in saved by trains sitting in floods with the sparking ruin of OHLE draped across them.

Because trains run though floods even when there aren't wires, right?

There aren't all that many situations where wires would come down but the line would have remained open had they not been there when we're talking about sea-walls. There are already places in Scotland (that suffer from extremely high winds) that are wired without too many problems.

Plus I think the odd extra delay is probably worth it in exchange for not wiping out all advantages of electrification to Plymouth and beyond.

 

[IKBrunel]

noting that one of the current problems at Dawlish is that the ballast has been washed away. Is there an argument for slab track on sections where this tends to happen, Cambrian line also for example. Obviously the edge of the slab would need to be bonded to a foundation wall set deep enough into the ground so the slab isn't undercut by flood water/waves/etc.

 

[HowardGWR]

noting that one of the current problems at Dawlish is that the ballast has been washed away. Is there an argument for slab track on sections where this tends to happen, Cambrian line also for example. Obviously the edge of the slab would need to be bonded to a foundation wall set deep enough into the ground so the slab isn't undercut by flood water/waves/etc.

It's the entire sea wall and the bank behind that has gone. The cliffs and ground here are of sandstone, which just crumbles away so those would have to be some mighty deep foundations, I suspect.

 

[snowball]

Or perhaps they could pile rocks in front of the sea wall once it's rebuilt, as the FR/WHR did recently when extending the Cob at Porthmadog so they could remodel the station. Or have piles of interlocking pieces of shaped reinforced concrete, like the "twisted-H" shapes that protect the A55 near the headland just east of Colwyn Bay.

 

[YorkshireBear]

A breakwater could also be considered.

 

[HSTEd]

A breakwater using appropriate hard Scottish volcanic rocks (like ones from that 'superquarry') would likely be a far better use of resources than attempting some sort of new line that just goes to Newton Abbot.

If you are going to build a new Exeter-Plymouth line it would likely be best to proceed directly between the two in a close a straight line as possible with a tunnel under Dartmoor.
You would also likely put a triangle junction north of Exeter to reach the line to allow it to better connect with any future Bristol-Exeter HSL.
The current alignment cannot be feasibly abandoned in any case.

 

[33Hz]

I'd hate to think of the business case for a full blown HSL between Exeter and Plymouth, yet alone tunneling through all that granite.

However, a reopening of the Southern route must be worth serious consideration.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I'd hate to think of the business case for a full blown HSL between Exeter and Plymouth, yet alone tunneling through all that granite.

However, a reopening of the Southern route must be worth serious consideration.

 

[WatcherZero]

NR have now given Government and stakeholders the report it was ordered in 2012 to produce on the Heathrow Western Rail Access Programme link (previously estimated to cost £500m). Subject to a suitable business case and aviation industry funding agreement NR says they could begin highways works in 2016, tunneling enabling works in 2018 and the link could be completed by 2021. The proposals would see a new junction created between Langley and Iver stations, linking with a 5km tunnel for trains to access Heathrow Terminal 5. Direct trains would operate from Reading via Slough.

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.c...-Heathrow-could-be-in-place-by-2021-1fbb.aspx

 

[ianhr]

I'd hate to think of the business case for a full blown HSL between Exeter and Plymouth, yet alone tunneling through all that granite.

However, a reopening of the Southern route must be worth serious consideration.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I'd hate to think of the business case for a full blown HSL between Exeter and Plymouth, yet alone tunneling through all that granite.

However, a reopening of the Southern route must be worth serious consideration.

On the Today programme this morning a NR official was saying that they would now look at an alternative alignment. I assume he meant Exeter-Newton Abbot but this was not made clear. Interestingly he made a passing reference to a former alternative route (the Southern via Okehampton).."which was closed during the Beeching period". I think I am right in saying that the Southern route to Plymouth finally closed (Okehampton-Bere Alston) a few years AFTER Beeching. The implication being that if it was there now it would be helpful.

I think we have discussed on here before that the business case for Okehampton-Tavistock is weak and that it would not be the chosen route if money were to be spent building a new diversionary line. The alignment between Tavistock and Devonport is tortuously curved and speeds would be very low. Does anyone know if the former GWR line between Tavistock and Marsh Mills is still unobstructed? It might be a better alignment, it runs parallel to the LSWR line north of Tavistock and could easily be connected there, and reaching the main line east of Plymouth trains would be facing the right way to continue to Cornwall. Is it possible to construct a case for spending on a potentially useful regional, local and suburban service AND strengthen this by it's availability as an occasional emergency diversion?

 

[HSTEd]

It is possible that he was not referring to the southern, but to the Teign Valley Line.

And as to there not being a business case to burrow through all that granite.... it turns out tunnelling is relatively cheap now, and it would have the benefit of actually delivering an alignment that was an improvement on the existing one.

The Southern or the TVL are unlikely to be any better operationally than Dawlish, the only advnatage they have is that they do not run along the sea front.

 

[cle]

NR have now given Government and stakeholders the report it was ordered in 2012 to produce on the Heathrow Western Rail Access Programme link (previously estimated to cost £500m). Subject to a suitable business case and aviation industry funding agreement NR says they could begin highways works in 2016, tunneling enabling works in 2018 and the link could be completed by 2021. The proposals would see a new junction created between Langley and Iver stations, linking with a 5km tunnel for trains to access Heathrow Terminal 5. Direct trains would operate from Reading via Slough.
http://www.networkrailmediacentre.c...-Heathrow-could-be-in-place-by-2021-1fbb.aspx

Would the tunnel be double-tracked? Assuming so, and with grade seperated connections onto the relief lines.

In which case, Crossrail would seem the most likely use and Heathrow T5 would have four through platforms, for flexibility.

If additional services were to terminate there from the West (maybe allowed one platform), I'd think faster services from Didcot/Oxford/beyond might be interesting.

So you could have
1 - through Crossrail to West
2 - terminating from London Crossrail
3 - terminating from West
4 - through Crossrail to West

(assuming Heathrow Express is history by this point)

 

[Frank Scully]

NR have now given Government and stakeholders the report it was ordered in 2012 to produce on the Heathrow Western Rail Access Programme link (previously estimated to cost £500m). Subject to a suitable business case and aviation industry funding agreement NR says they could begin highways works in 2016, tunneling enabling works in 2018 and the link could be completed by 2021. The proposals would see a new junction created between Langley and Iver stations, linking with a 5km tunnel for trains to access Heathrow Terminal 5. Direct trains would operate from Reading via Slough.

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.c...-Heathrow-could-be-in-place-by-2021-1fbb.aspx

Excellent news. I would like to see intercity services from Penzance/Bristol/Swansea running directly into Heathrow.

 

[gwr4090]

Would the tunnel be double-tracked? Assuming so, and with grade seperated connections onto the relief lines.

In which case, Crossrail would seem the most likely use and Heathrow T5 would have four through platforms, for flexibility.

If additional services were to terminate there from the West (maybe allowed one platform), I'd think faster services from Didcot/Oxford/beyond might be interesting.

So you could have
1 - through Crossrail to West
2 - terminating from London Crossrail
3 - terminating from West
4 - through Crossrail to West

(assuming Heathrow Express is history by this point)

This is not very likely IMHO. The most likely service will involve replacement of HEX by a 4tph fast service from Paddington calling at Heathrow, Slough and Reading only and then terminating at Oxford, Newbury or Basingstoke (for connection to SWT services). This will be worked by fast 110mph (maybe 125mph) emus on the main lines, not by the suburban Crossrail trains which will be too slow to run on the mains. This option is discussed in one of the RUS reports.

 

[HowardGWR]

This is not very likely IMHO. The most likely service will involve replacement of HEX by a 4tph fast service from Paddington calling at Heathrow, Slough and Reading only and then terminating at Oxford, Newbury or Basingstoke (for connection to SWT services). This will be worked by fast 110mph (maybe 125mph) emus on the main lines, not by the suburban Crossrail trains which will be too slow to run on the mains. This option is discussed in one of the RUS reports.

Yes that does seem a most reasonable suggestion although an XR terminating at T5 is included in your idea, I assume (replacement for Heathrow Connect)?

 

[gwr4090]

Yes that does seem a most reasonable suggestion although an XR terminating at T5 is included in your idea, I assume (replacement for Heathrow Connect)?

Crossrail will take over the Connect service and will run to T4 or T5, but I anticipate that 2tph might continue as stoppers to Slough or Maidenhead. But the main service from the West to Heathrow needs to be a fast quality service (with toilets etc) from Reading. I don't envisage any IEPs calling at Heathrow, so GWML passengers will need to change at Reading (and SWT passengers at Basingstoke).

 

[cle]

But we know that the new tunnel(s?) are going to connect to the reliefs - so having T5 services on the mains would involve big crossing moves, eating up mainline capacity.

The reliefs are going to be predominantly Crossrail, which is also going to T5 - so it seems the logical solution to merge the two and extend them onwards to Reading on the reliefs.
Or to layover and begin a 'new service' (as nobody would choose to travel via the airport) with the same stock - just interworked with Crossrail. And that could run 4tph Reading, with 2tph to Oxford and 2tph to Newbury/Basingstoke or whatever.

 

[JamesRowden]

But we know that the new tunnel(s?) are going to connect to the reliefs - so having T5 services on the mains would involve big crossing moves, eating up mainline capacity.

The reliefs are going to be predominantly Crossrail, which is also going to T5 - so it seems the logical solution to merge the two and extend them onwards to Reading on the reliefs.
Or to layover and begin a 'new service' (as nobody would choose to travel via the airport) with the same stock - just interworked with Crossrail. And that could run 4tph Reading, with 2tph to Oxford and 2tph to Newbury/Basingstoke or whatever.

How about organising the off-peak electric Thames Valley services through Reading to Paddington/Heathrow like this:

• 2tph Basingstoke - Reading - RL - Heathrow
• 2tph Newbury - Reading - ML - Paddington
• 1tph Oxford - ML - Reading - ML - Paddington
• 2tph Oxford - RL - Reading - ML - Paddington
• 1tph Milton Keynes - RL - Reading - RL - Heathrow
• 1tph Bedford - RL - Reading - RL - Heathrow

RL = Relief Line
ML = Main Line